CCI test - Task 21 2

Walter & Group...

[GH]  Comments on our discussion of what should be required (our expectations) of the candidate .  This from Molly Semenik :

Gordy,

If a candidate did not mention casting angle(words used on the exam), would you not pass them on this exercise?

What if a person described “arc” as the path the tip of the rod takes?  This would lead the examiner to ask “how would the “arc” you describe effect loop shape?”  Joan (page 25) discussing extended arc for longer line and the lifting of the arm to keep the SLP.  This all so easily moves in master level.  I, along with Tim, really need to understand the CI answer.  I am sure we are not alone on this.  And really this would be the same answer an instructor would give a student.  I ask again, is it mandatory for a pass on 21 for the understanding of casting arc or angle and its relationship to stroke be understood by the candidate?

Molly

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[GH]  Molly,

I would not hold the CCI candidate responsible for using the exact words on the test .  Reasonable synonyms would suffice.

Getting into an in depth discussion at a Master level would not be my intent, as you know.

As our CCI Testing Committee reviews these tasks and recommends changes, the EXPECTATIONS are being carefully considered.

Gordy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[GH] From Bill Toone :

When reading some of the responses to Tim's question it certainly did seem like we were off track.

As a tester I want the short answer first, what Tim calls the pat answer.  I will ask for expansion on this if I feel it is needed (for varying reasons).  If the candidate has a grasp of the 5 essentials as outlined by Bill Gammel then they should be able to handle any additional questions I may have on this subject (or most others) to probe his or her depth of understanding; (a side note here however, I would hope for more reading than just Bill Gammel's 5 Essentials). Depending on how the test is going I may need to feel reassured the candidate has more than just a memorized answer without understanding fully at a CI expected level the logic or knowledge behind the answer.

With question #21 used as the example, it is asking for what changes were made (and demonstrated) to the casting stroke for increased distance, not an in depth distortation on stroke, arc, etc.  As it was stated, this is a CI question and exam, not the Masters exam. So lead with the short answer but be prepared to back it up with some understanding of what lays behind it. 

As a rule the items in the comments part are hints t o what the testers are looking for in the response back from the candidate.  

Regards,

Bill Toone

Editor in Chief, Flyfisher

FFF Master Certified Casting Instructor

Instructor/Guide, Yellowstone Fly Fishing School

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[GH]  As most of you know, Chuck Easterling is the chairman of our BOG CCI Testing Committee.  I asked for his response to our discussion on Task 21 :

Hi Gordy,

I view tasks 18 through 24 as the tasks which give us insight into a candidate's teaching ability.  In my thinking the most important thing we are looking for is effective communication.  Often, the secret of effective communication is the ability to convey an important concept with as few words as possible.

With respect to task 21 a candidate can go a long by simply saying, "short casts short strokes, long casts long strokes" and then giving a demonstration that is consistent with this.  Of course, I may ask a candidate "Why?" or "What happens if you don't do that?" and the candidate's response will indicate the depth of understanding or if he or she is merely reciting something heard or read. 

In summary with respect to tasks 18-24, I am looking for as concise and accurate an explanation as possible, a demonstration that is consistent with the explanation and then an ability to expand or defend the concise explanation.  

                                                          Chuck